4 ms·

> The exploiters subsequently submitted a proposal in the Mango governance forum to give back the majority of the funds … in exchange for $47 million and the pr

> The exploiters subsequently submitted a proposal in the Mango governance forum to give back the majority of the funds … in exchange for $47 million and the promise of dropping any criminal investigation. How were they expecting Mango to prevent a criminal investigation? Aren’t those pursued by governments? Edit: I wonder if they meant that they wanted Mango to just not cooperate with any criminal investigation.

wmf 4y ago
If everybody involved in Mango says no crime was committed I would be surprised to see prosecutors bring charges. Why would a jury convict in that scenario?
- schemescape 4y ago
  If I read the article correctly, they were trying to coerce Mango into paying them and ignoring the hack. That sounds like an additional crime and not a reason to let it slide, but IANAL.
  - wmf 4y ago
    That's a good point; you could definitely argue that the agreement was made under duress.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > That’s a good point; you could definitely argue that the agreement was made under duress. If people involved in Mango governance were defending against a claim from Eisenberg, they wouldn’t need to, because illegality would be a stronger argument. If they were defending against criminal charges from the government for the illegal agreement, they wouldn’t be able to cite duress, because as a criminal defense, duress requires an immediate threat of death or serious bodily (not financial) harm. It’s the literal “gun to the head” defense.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> How were they expecting Mango to prevent a criminal investigation? Maybe they believe the way it is sometimes presented in TV dramas that a victim choosing not to “press charges” is actually a binding factor, rather than a complication in proof (and, in minor cases, a reduction in priority independent of the proof complication) for criminal prosecution. > Edit: I wonder if they meant that they wanted Mango to just not cooperate with any criminal investigation. Also not implausible.

wmf 4y ago

If everybody involved in Mango says no crime was committed I would be surprised to see prosecutors bring charges. Why would a jury convict in that scenario?

schemescape 4y ago
If I read the article correctly, they were trying to coerce Mango into paying them and ignoring the hack. That sounds like an additional crime and not a reason to let it slide, but IANAL.
- wmf 4y ago
  That's a good point; you could definitely argue that the agreement was made under duress.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That’s a good point; you could definitely argue that the agreement was made under duress. If people involved in Mango governance were defending against a claim from Eisenberg, they wouldn’t need to, because illegality would be a stronger argument. If they were defending against criminal charges from the government for the illegal agreement, they wouldn’t be able to cite duress, because as a criminal defense, duress requires an immediate threat of death or serious bodily (not financial) harm. It’s the literal “gun to the head” defense.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> How were they expecting Mango to prevent a criminal investigation? Maybe they believe the way it is sometimes presented in TV dramas that a victim choosing not to “press charges” is actually a binding factor, rather than a complication in proof (and, in minor cases, a reduction in priority independent of the proof complication) for criminal prosecution. > Edit: I wonder if they meant that they wanted Mango to just not cooperate with any criminal investigation. Also not implausible.